And here I thought the empirical method in science is entirely based upon the consistent frequency of events occurring. In other words, the more frequently things happen in a predictable way, the more likely they are to be factually true.
You may wish to discuss the points made in his post rather than making comments that are irrelevant to them.
If you believe that science cannot speak of meaning, then you necessarily believe it can’t speak of final purposes, and so isn’t teleological. In which case excellent, that’s just as Francis Bacon defined it 400 years ago, and just as it is today.
That is not correct. I don’t understand how do you reach to this conclusion.
Well, I think all these concepts are the result of human thinking. Science in fact can describe where these concepts come from. We have frontal lobe which is bigger than another animal and that helps us to comprehend all these abstract thoughts.
That is not true. To the best of my understanding materialism only fails to explain mind. Other than that it is successful to explain a wide varieties of phenomena. To the best of my knowledge we don’t have an alternative for materialism.
Free will is subject of discussion. Other attributes to my opinion are result brain activities so to my understanding science can eventually explain them. Do we have another systematic approach in our disposal to study these phenomena? Not yet so lets wait until then.
We cannot ignore them. They are simply different types of subjective experience which we are very dependent on them. Why we can ignore them if they are not objective?
Dualism has it is own problems: (1) Interaction problem, (2) it doesn’t explain what mind is, (3) it doesn’t explain what the attributes of mind are? etc.
Materialism doesn’t explain what matter really is, hence it cannot explain what the attributes of matter are.
I agree. But materialism allows us to understand the behavior of matter in term of its constitutes. This not only affect our lives but also our understanding in another branches such as philosophy (think of quantum mechanics and its affect on philosophy for example). Did idealism, dualism, etcetera had such a great impact in our understanding of existence in general?
I think he intentionally or unintentionally forgot that the ideas in micro material world are nothing more than attributes of matter in small scale. Whether we can find out what really those ideas/attributes are is subject of further research.
Your second paragraph directly contradicts your previous post to me, the other paragraphs don’t respond to my post, you confused materialism with scientism having previously confused it with science, and you again managed to put your words into my mouth in your quote.
It is still a fact that Catholic (and other Christian) scientists do not and cannot believe science can in principle explain everything. “a world perspective” in that context is not a scientific but a metaphysical conclusion.Your second paragraph directly contradicts your previous post to me, the other paragraphs don’t respond to my post, you confused materialism with scientism having previously confused it with science, and you again managed to put your words into my mouth in your quote.
But as you’re now arguing that science isn’t teleological, we’re agreed on the OP so not much else to be said.
Science is based on at least two metaphysical assumptions: the validity of reason and the intelligibility of the universe. Science does not and cannot explain itself. Philosophy is a systematic approach to study not only science but other aspects of reality.
The existence of sceptics, cynics, nihilists and criminals prove that we can - and many people do - ignore beliefs, emotions, values, ideals, principles, goals, rights and obligations with impunity. In other words they “get away with it”.
Every theory of reality has its problems but materialism is self-destructive because it claims to explain itself whereas dualism does not fall into that trap. It is presumptuous to believe we can explain everything including our own power to explain everything!
I agree with you.
Or more appositely a metascientific conclusion.
Philosophy also cannot explain itself also. Philosophy is a systematic approach for correct thinking. Why such a approach should exist at all?
But dualism unlike scientism doesn’t provide any systematic approach to study and explain phenomena in reality. It just tell you that human is made of body and soul, that is it.
If we don’t have a systematic approach for correct thinking we are illogical and have no rational foundation for our conclusions. Science is based on the assumption that we have a rational foundation for our conclusions.
It goes further than that because it implies there is interaction between the mind (or soul or spirit) and the body which has been a fundamental belief of mankind since the dawn of history. Materialism is a relatively rare phenomenon and even now has a relatively small minority of adherents. The majority are not always right, of course, but in practice all sane people behave as if they can control their bodies and are responsible for their behaviour.
Because it is the only way to live successfully! Science is just one example of how it achieves results - and it is a product of a rational approach to physical reality. It becomes irrational only if it exceeds its brief and claims to be capable of explaining **every **aspect of reality…
I meant that philosophy cannot explain itself also.If we don’t have a systematic approach for correct thinking we are illogical and have no rational foundation for our conclusions. Science is based on the assumption that we have a rational foundation for our conclusions.
I think you are undermining scientism. Scientism flourished human civilization. Dualism didn’t really has such an effect.
The word “scientism” has some very specific overtones in some circles. It refers to a hypothetical stance that “science” can eventually explain everything, even such questions, why does Joe prefer tall blondes and Bill prefers short brunettes. Of course NO ONE asserts such nonsense. But no matter how frequently this problem is pointed out, there will be some people who are adamant to misunderstand science. The best thing is to put them onto “ignore”.
I think we will be able to eventually answer such a questions. Our personalities are shaped by our genes and experiences.
